- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
- Posts
- 5,202
- Location
- Germany
- Society
- Jurai Blood
- Avatar Name
- Nicholas wizzszz Wolf
For the sake of simplicity i will set an example utilizing this good old question:
It also has the advantage that there is no "easy to grasp" solution, which provides a perfect scenario for our purposes.
We also add the assumption that none of the participants is (deliberately) trolling, and they all are interested in finding a solution that is acceptable for everyone.
Anna is starting a thread about it, Bob is the first one to reply.
After a few posts they agree on the fact that an egg has to be fertilized, and therefor, in case the egg was first, there has to be not only a non-existant hen, but on top of that a non-existant rooster!
Bob makes the objection that the non-existant rooster doesn't go too well with the "law of parsimony", as it requires an additional assumption (see Occam's razor).
They both carry on with the debate, examining the circumstances of the "hen was first" side of the scenario.
This is where Charlie enters the debate.
Charlie has read the opening post as well as all the posts Anna and Bob made so far, but he does not agree on the "non-existant" rooster deduction - in his opinion, assumptions about "how the egg came into existance" totally defeat the idea of "the egg was first".
He calls out Bob on one of his older posts.
Bob replies with a short, angry post, summarizing what he wrote with Anna before - he has no interest in starting the debate over with Charlie and instead tries to continue the debate at the point where he was with Anna already.
Before Anna replies, Dave enters the debate.
He has read the opening post, and the last page of the discussion, but none of the posts that have been made before Charlie entered. He is a friend of Charlie, and deems Charlies points very valid, whereas Bob appears to be rude and too terse to be still rated "polite".
Dave posts a short post about Charlie being totally right, and add a snipe comment aimed at Bob.
Bob, meanwhile involved in 2 different debates (one with Anna, at an advanced stage, and one with Charlie, albeit unwanted), he thinks Charlie should either stay out of the discussion or tries to catch up with the discussion he has with Anna - he tries to brush Charlie and Dave off with a short but sarcastic comment.
This is where Edith and Fred enter the discussion - both did read the opening post, but the thread is meanwhile a bit too long to catch up quickly - Fred is eager to comment, intrigued by the first posts of Anna and Bob, so he skips all except the last few posts.
Edith reads all.
Edith supports Bobs point of view, and would like to carry on with the debate, from the point right before Charlie entered. She aims a comment at Dave, telling him he has not posted anything substantial so far, and confirms Bobs point of view.
Now Fred, who never liked Edith, tells her to shut up, because she doesn't have a clue anyway, and he adds a short comment aimed at Charlie, telling him that an egg has always to be fertilized in order to hatch.
Anna, a good friend of Edith, asks Fred whether he just joined to ruin the debate.
Now we have a lot of conversations going on:
- Anna shouting at Fred
- Fred argueing with Charlie about biology basics
- Bob exchanging insults with Dave
- some are argueing about different aspects of former posts
- and some more are about to unfold.
Hardly anyone cares about the original subject anymore, things have begun to turn into a "who got more supporters for his (not necessarily right) point" contest, points that have been valid and accepted by the "other side" are invalidated and shred into pieces, not because the are wrong all of a sudden, they simply have enough supporters, who reinforce it on a mutual basis, and nobody wants to admit that his point is wrong.
Soon a moderator pops up, bans Fred, cautions Edith and locks the thread.
And this is a NORMAL thread, nobody has (purposely) taken actions to derail the discussion or start a flaming war.
Feel free to comment, or point out where my scenario is unrealistic, but please try to stick to the "Hen or Egg" thingie, as well as to the original persons where possible.
When i have some feedback about the scenario, i will add my personal thoughts on "what can we do better?".
Which Came First: The Hen or the Egg?
It also has the advantage that there is no "easy to grasp" solution, which provides a perfect scenario for our purposes.
We also add the assumption that none of the participants is (deliberately) trolling, and they all are interested in finding a solution that is acceptable for everyone.
Anna is starting a thread about it, Bob is the first one to reply.
After a few posts they agree on the fact that an egg has to be fertilized, and therefor, in case the egg was first, there has to be not only a non-existant hen, but on top of that a non-existant rooster!
Bob makes the objection that the non-existant rooster doesn't go too well with the "law of parsimony", as it requires an additional assumption (see Occam's razor).
They both carry on with the debate, examining the circumstances of the "hen was first" side of the scenario.
This is where Charlie enters the debate.
Charlie has read the opening post as well as all the posts Anna and Bob made so far, but he does not agree on the "non-existant" rooster deduction - in his opinion, assumptions about "how the egg came into existance" totally defeat the idea of "the egg was first".
He calls out Bob on one of his older posts.
Bob replies with a short, angry post, summarizing what he wrote with Anna before - he has no interest in starting the debate over with Charlie and instead tries to continue the debate at the point where he was with Anna already.
Before Anna replies, Dave enters the debate.
He has read the opening post, and the last page of the discussion, but none of the posts that have been made before Charlie entered. He is a friend of Charlie, and deems Charlies points very valid, whereas Bob appears to be rude and too terse to be still rated "polite".
Dave posts a short post about Charlie being totally right, and add a snipe comment aimed at Bob.
Bob, meanwhile involved in 2 different debates (one with Anna, at an advanced stage, and one with Charlie, albeit unwanted), he thinks Charlie should either stay out of the discussion or tries to catch up with the discussion he has with Anna - he tries to brush Charlie and Dave off with a short but sarcastic comment.
This is where Edith and Fred enter the discussion - both did read the opening post, but the thread is meanwhile a bit too long to catch up quickly - Fred is eager to comment, intrigued by the first posts of Anna and Bob, so he skips all except the last few posts.
Edith reads all.
Edith supports Bobs point of view, and would like to carry on with the debate, from the point right before Charlie entered. She aims a comment at Dave, telling him he has not posted anything substantial so far, and confirms Bobs point of view.
Now Fred, who never liked Edith, tells her to shut up, because she doesn't have a clue anyway, and he adds a short comment aimed at Charlie, telling him that an egg has always to be fertilized in order to hatch.
Anna, a good friend of Edith, asks Fred whether he just joined to ruin the debate.
Now we have a lot of conversations going on:
- Anna shouting at Fred
- Fred argueing with Charlie about biology basics
- Bob exchanging insults with Dave
- some are argueing about different aspects of former posts
- and some more are about to unfold.
Hardly anyone cares about the original subject anymore, things have begun to turn into a "who got more supporters for his (not necessarily right) point" contest, points that have been valid and accepted by the "other side" are invalidated and shred into pieces, not because the are wrong all of a sudden, they simply have enough supporters, who reinforce it on a mutual basis, and nobody wants to admit that his point is wrong.
Soon a moderator pops up, bans Fred, cautions Edith and locks the thread.
And this is a NORMAL thread, nobody has (purposely) taken actions to derail the discussion or start a flaming war.
Feel free to comment, or point out where my scenario is unrealistic, but please try to stick to the "Hen or Egg" thingie, as well as to the original persons where possible.
When i have some feedback about the scenario, i will add my personal thoughts on "what can we do better?".